A case study of Conversation Analysis based onLabov’s Narrative Structure Theory

【摘要】作為社會語言學代表人物，拉波夫把語篇分析從修辭學的角度帶到了新的高度，提出敘事結構理論，從而影響敘事學研究的發展。本文以其理論為指導，通過實際生活中的案例來加深對敘事結構理論的理解，從而啟發故事在校園英語教學的獨特作用。

【關鍵詞】語篇分析；拉波夫敘事結構模式

【作者簡介】林漢釗，廣東外語外貿大學。

1. Transcription Case

Interviewer： How did you become the person you are now？

1.1 Interviewee： To make this as brief as possible， Im going to start （0.2） with my family. You see， my family has always been very very important to me. We love each other and I feel super super attached to them.

1.2 B： And something I deem very important to myself is loyalty. I think that my family taught me that， because my parents would do anything for their kids， even that meant hurting themselves. Its something touching， I guess， and its stuck with me. I started to adapt those traits to myself.

1.3 B： Also， I may be affected by X which is a soccer team and they have a loyal player. X is not the best team， but not a bad team， usually at Top20 in the world. But there are better teams out there and there is one player during 1996-2017， who was often considered the best player. He could have gone to Y， definitely better than X， could have won more and its richer， so he could have made more money， but he never left. He stayed with his team forever and he was my favorite player.

1.4 B： I cherish what my family taught me and watching him play， one of my dreams was to become a professional soccer player. I want to represent and stay with that team， no matter what.

1.5 B： So， I guess that can show you why I deem loyalty so important. Im a person who would do anything for friends and families. I attribute that to my loyalty. I was asked about a week ago would you rather save a city from being exploded by a bomb or saving loved ones. As you can imagine， pretty much the question is a zero-sum game. I chose the latter. I cant do that， its betrayal for me.

1.6 B： Well， I know that I have an addicted personality that makes me think about one thing for a while. One of my dreams is to find one person and always be with that person， right？ Im just trying to find the right person right now. I think that goes to show my loyalty. All of sudden I feel like Im betraying my future wife， if I have one some day. Thats it！

2. Discourse Analysis

I selected this short but rich period， because it centers around one core： loyalty， a notable virtue. If we view this narrative as a movie， the title would be The Importance of Loyalty. The plots can be divided into five parts as the discourse structure in macro level： ① and ② is about familys influence on personality； ③ describes his favorite soccer players loyalty； ④ summarizes two important aspects and builds the connection unitedly； ⑤ steps out of the narrative to evaluate prior information； ⑥ shows narrators own loyalty and its impact.

Labov and Waletzky （1967） identified six structural models as Abstract， Orientation， Complication action， Evaluation， Resolution， and Coda. Labov suggests that a complete narrative begin with an abstract， followed by an orientation， proceeding to the complicating action， evaluation and resolution before ending with the coda.

Abstract summarizes not only what the narrative is about， but why it is told. This is fulfilled by the question from the interviewer， which guides responses and presents the topic， journey of growth. The “this” in the start implies that the speaker recognizes the presence of abstract and incorporate it as the beginning of his narrative. The first sentence in ② is the first summary sentence in the narrative， so it is abstract too. According to Labov and Waletzky （1967） the Orientation introduces the reader to significant background details in a story such as characters， time， setting or mood of characters etc. In this sense， orientation clauses have a semantic function. Both part 1 and 2 contain scene-setting actions. In the narrative of family， “parents” are the main characters in performance and the mood is highlighted by “love” to depict a warm family environment and convey positive mood. In part 2， orientation is more obvious in the first few lines. Since he cannot expect the listener to know all the background knowledge， he makes extra efforts to tell the listener what the situation is. For example， he offers the rank to pinpoint the level of the team， which is critical for the audience to understand the players loyalty： if the team is good and rich enough， there is no reason to leave. When introducing the character， speaker adds his career time to show his persistence. Complication actions would be the main body of the narrative describing events that occurred. However， since the speaker is not telling full-developed narratives， it is hard to find real CA.

Labov and Waletzky （1967） define narrative as ‘consisting of a sequence of two or more narrative clauses. In Johnstones words， “If two narrative clauses are reversed， they represent a different chronology”（Pp.123）. Considering part 1 and 2 as two large narrative clauses， the current order is “family/soccer idol”， because family is the original environment from speakers birth that has a lasting impact on his outlook on life； he got to know the soccer player later in adolescence， which is a recent and external factor. Both of them advance the storyline， but in speakers cognitive process of 0.2s， he not only arranges them in importance but also in sequence. Part 1 and 2 cannot be switched without switching the “story world” order of events. Part 3 merges them into one powerful unity by making an analogy between family and team， where members are close and dont want to leave. He is combining the internal and external factors to make sense of his core value in this part.

Evaluation is to indicate why the narrative is told， and what the narrator arrives at. Part 4 makes external evaluation towards prior contents and shows his own understanding of loyalty， apart from parents and players performance. “That can show you” “that” is not just an anaphor for cohesion， but it is a metacommunicative device as “contextualization cue”. It shows the narrator overtly steps out of the narration to evaluate how his talk should be interpreted. He points out the intended interpretation is loyalty， rather than love for family or interests in soccer. Besides， Evaluation can be found throughout the narrative in embedded form. One typical example is “It is something touching， I guess”. Descriptive adjective and “guess” imply that the speaker is assessing the quality of his parents caring practices in the narrative. Evaluation makes use of intensifiers such as degree adverbs. The interviewee includes “very”， “super” and “forever” to show his attitudes， which matches with the contents to strengthen the emotional appeal as internal evaluation. Lastly， one unique evaluation is infused in part 2 and that is “elements that compare what did happen with what did not， could have or might happen”（Johnstone， Pp.124）. The listener conducts comparative evaluation between lost opportunities and players gain. It is noteworthy that the start of part 2 is Orientation and it serves a double purpose as Evaluation， indicating “narrative may include clauses with one or more of six functions” （Johnstone， Pp.123）.

Part 5 works as Result. It is his loyalty that makes him look for the one. Given that wife is a part of the family， or a member of the ‘soccer team， it shows how his addicted personality continues into future. Finally， Coda signals the end of a narrative after solving problems. It has the potential to bridge the gap between end moment in narrative and the present. “Thats it” is a Coda， marking the end and drawing both sides back to the reality from future. One thing about the Coda and “as brief as possible” is that they show speakers attention to Grices Cooperative Principle， especially the Maxim of Quantity.

Essentially， the purpose of the talk is to persuade audience to believe the image central to ones identity， whether consciously or subconsciously. One persuasive strategy is using “presentational” tools （Johnstone， 1989）. The goal of presentational persuasion is to make the claim maximally present in the audiences consciousness， by repeating， paraphrasing and calling attention to it （Pp.91） such as the frequent appearance of “loyalty”. In this process the interviewee was deconstructing his life and figuring out what mattered， so he went back to the word as he tried to find examples to support his claim. “I think/deem loyalty important” repeats itself to reinforce presentational effects. Another technique is visual metaphors by making the claim seem to be present in audiences field of vision. Words are used to arouse imagination like “show”， “you see” which guides the listener to view family interactions as vivid scenes， and “As you can imagine” which asks listeners to look into the set-up. And stories are easy to grasp. In section⑤ there is a story about the speaker being asked to make choices. With it， listeners can understand the abstract concept more handily.

In conclusion， telling a life story is like decoding the making of ones personal identity and social position， “shaping a coherent life story in the telling of it” （Johnstone， Pp.173）. The oral narrative falls neatly into the discourse structure devised by Labov in which the interviewee constantly stresses the theme. Such reflection not only helps the audience learn about him， but also allows the speaker to have a better understanding of himself. In this way， he represents his life experiences as a meaningful and consistent whole.

References：

[1]Labov，W.&Waletzky;，J.Narrative analysis：Oral versions of personal experience[M].In J.Helm，Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts， Seattle：University of Washington Press，1967：12-44.

[2]Labov，W.The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In Language in the Inner City[M].Philadelphia：University of Pennsylvania Press，1972：354-96.

[3]Johnstone，Barbara.Discourse Analysis （3rd edition）[J].Blackwell Publisher Ltd，2018.